Round Peg, Square Hole

I know that the saying is about trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, but hopefully by the end of this you'll figure out why I titled it the way I did.

There are always people that like to engage the anarchist by telling us that an anarchist society can't exist for (insert reason here). Most times this is done from a complete lack of understanding about what anarchism really is. Sometimes it is done in the form of a strawman based on that misunderstanding. And the knee jerk reaction of so many anarchists doesn't improve the situation at all. What the person performing the attack is looking for is an example of a NATION based on a political model of anarchism and what the knee jerk anarchist does is provide them with theories of what such a society might look like. Depending on the focus of the anarchist, this vision might take on many different forms. But the entire argument is based on a false assumption that it is possible to apply a political system to anarchism, which it is not.

Anarchism is about freedom from those very political systems that the statist is trying to get us to apply anarchy too. Anarchy is about having no rulers, this is something that both camps seem to agree on. But it isn't about any type of political relationship. Anarchy is about personal, individual relationships. There is no "system" of anarchy that can or would be setup to run a nation (including libertarianism). We are talking about "no rulers" and specifically no government control in personal social relationships. There will probably always be governments, but wheter they exist or not has absoluetly to bearing on an anarchist "society". It would be much easier to develop these personal relationships that escape being interfered with a third party if that third party didn't exist, but it isn't neccesary that the third party not exist for an anarchist society to thrive.

The statist is unable to grasp the concept of society outside of the political arena. More often than not their definition of society will include some politically powered government inside of artificial borders created by that same government. But a society is, not just for the purpose of anarchy, any group of people that interact with a specific purpose in mind. There are fraternal societies, religious societies, military societies, secret societies, etc., all existing within those political borders now. They all operate with their own sets of rules, their own membership reqiurements, their own guiding principles. And while the statist is perfectly willing to accept these societies, even when they don't understand them, for some reason an anarchist society is held to a different standard.

To me the reason for this is pretty simple. The nature of anarchism is a society "without rulers" and since the statist is unable to truly understand this concept, they feel that an anarchist society is a pipe dream. Consider this, most people are unaware of how to provide for their basic neccesities without the states involvement. Ask them where their last meal came from. The proud "libertarian" may say that they purchased the food for that meal with their own money, that they earned themselves, from the local grocery store. But every part of that statement is dependant on the government. There is no such thing as "their own money" since the currency they used is actually property of the government they serve. In order to work, they are required to have government issued identification that says who they are and tracks the wages that they earn. Their local grocery store purchased those groceries from a supplier that is regulated by government controls. The food is delievered to the store over roads that are owned by the government. And at last, when they give the government vouchers to the cashier, they give another portion of their wages to the government in the form of taxes. So it is no wonder that the typical statist has a hard time understanding how an anarchist society can exist with all that government interference in even the "simple" process of meeting their basic human needs.

But, as I have already stated, an anarchist society is about personal, individual relationships. It isn't about providing another version of that same process, even though what they want when they get us into these "debates" is an example of that exact same thing, minus the government. The bad news is that there is no way to mimic that system without an all encompassing third party, that no matter what political tweaks you make to the system will continue to be government. Anarchism doesn't wish to mimic that system, and anarchists couldn't mimic that system even if we wanted too. Not while still remaining true to our principles. Of course, this is the same reason we will not see a "minarchist" style government either. As long as "we the people" make up the government, the only option is for government to expand at a faster rate than "we the people". The people who advocate a smaller government are really the ones with the pipedream. The nature of government is to never give up ground. The nature of a government run by "we the people" is to constantly expand to meet the wants and desires of the people who make it up.

But anarchist societies can and do exist within this "nation". The entire idea is to build social relationships outside of "government rule". Relationships that provide those basic neccesities, like food,clothing and shelter, without an outside "ruler" dictating the forms those relationships can take. When asked about a strategy for anarchy, that SHOULD be our answer. Developing social relationships based on the ideals of anarchism. Fostering new alliances that meet our needs and keeping them free of as much government influence as possible, until the time comes when the can directly and openly compete with Leviathan.

So if you want examples of anarchistic societies, just look around. They are there. We seem them in practice everyday. Its just that the statist is usually unable to see any further than their own misery and enslavement. Freedom and liberty take real actions by the individual. Some (maybe most) people aren't willing to put in the work it takes to be an anarchist. They can't even figure out how to feed themselves without the government.

About Racism

The is yet another discussion going on at Mises about controlling immigration, which always devolves into one group saying they have the right to discriminate against people based on their race.

I agree that people can not be forced to associate with anyone they don't wish to, when it comes to their private property. I also agree that groups of these people can choose to "band together" in a certain area to exclude persons of another race from settling there, on any of their private property. I think that any community that chose to do that would suffer from their decision to do so, but they certainly have the right to do that.

There are really two arguments involved in the pro-racism camp. The first has to do with the loss of cultural identity, which is just another way of complaining about race mixing. They like to reference Hoppe on this point and his "tribalism" approach to immigration. However they fail to point out the inconsistencies with this argument, which Hoppe himself avoids by saying that the state should, "act as if they were a private property owner" and that we should look at the argument in this light. Without stating the obvious, that the state is not a legitimate private property owner, lets go ahead with this line of reasoning for the sake of argument.

Lets say that all borders are privately owned land and the owner has the right to exclude anyone they want from tresspassing on that property. First, anyone that could get to someone elses property, someone that actually does believe in a free market and wants that diversity, the person owning the "borders" could have no say so over who that property owner could associate or do business with. Second, lets pretend there are no such things as helicopters and the only way to get to the free market owners property was to cross the property at these "borders". Surely any act that deprived the free market owner the right of association, the right to do business with whomever they choose, can be seen as nothing less than an act of either force or coercion against the free market owner. Any violation of the NAP warrants a reaction by those who are trying to participate in the free market. I think their argument falls apart at this point. Another area to look at is the validity of any contract. For it to be valid, there must be a way to exit the contract.

Say I wanted to be a part of this collectivist, protectionist society. Five years later some Martians offer me a million dollars for my property. I have the right to exercise the escape clause from the orginal exclusionary contract and I have the right to dispose of my property in anyway I see fit. There can not be a valid contract that holds me or my property to the terms of the contract forever. So there is no way to insure that an insular, racist community would stay that way forever. Even if there was a clause that said the racists got first shot at the property in question, there can not be a clause that forces me to accept their offer without violating either the NAP or libertarian principles in general.

The second argument in the pro-racism camp revolves around Rothbards argument that it is neccesary to limit immigration because non-libertarians may move in and change the "political landscape" to something decidedly non-libertarian. This view MUST have a political system in place that accepts that government intervention into the free market is acceptable. Which is exactly what we have now. This is, of course, a non-libertarian position and I can only attribute it to Rothbards conversion late in life from a staunch libertarian to a paleo-conservative that still considered himself the "guru" of libertarianism.

The libertarian and free market view is that anyone may associate or disassociate themselves from anyone that they chose. They may not use force or coercion against anyone else. Both of the above arguments require either force or coercion to be used against persons with differing views.

Introduction

This isn't my only blog. I post one on my MySpace page, http://www.myspace.com/irishoutlaw and one at Polycentric Order, http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com and another one at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. But I decided I needed another one. I don't exactly know why I wanted to do another one.
There are very few people that know a lot about me. Not because I am trying to keep anything from anyone, its mainly because I go from scatterbrained to intensely focused on one subject in short periods of time. But between all my sites you should be able ro put a lot of information together about me.
This blog is going to focus on my personal philosophies on a wide range of topics, all related to Anarchism.
So check back here often.
If you have something specific you would like me to address, or if you just want to call me names, my email is heyirishoutlaw@gmail.com.